[SciPy-Dev] scipy.stats

Travis Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
Tue Jun 1 03:32:56 CDT 2010

On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:22 AM, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Travis Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 2010, at 9:16 AM, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
>>> This is more about the process then the content, distributions was
>>> Travis's baby (although unfinished), and most of his changes are very
>>> good, but I don't want to look for the 5-10% (?) typos anymore.
>> I really am not sure what the difference between looking at timeline of changes and a formal "review" process really is?  In either case you are "looking for someone's mistakes or problems".   I do think your estimate of typos is a bit aggressive.  Really?  5-10% typos.    What is the denominator?
> I just replied for most of this.
> My test run in the middle of the weekend (before I gave up), had about
> 4 or 5 test failures in the new _logpdf _logcdf methods.

In this particular case, you can just look at the pdf method and compare it with the logpdf method.  I only added ones that were obvious.  Are you running a test different from 

>>> from scipy.stats import test
>>> test()

to get these errors? 

Are you saying the skew and kurtosis test functions return different numbers than expected?   


More information about the SciPy-Dev mailing list